HSUS and Tax Cheating
Prop B, the HSUS Agenda, and the Hitler-like Spider
By Frank Losey
Satan sometimes "masquerades as an angel of light" in order to try and deceive us. (2 Corinthians 11:14)
"Come into my parlor said the spider to the fly." This 'invitation' sounded sincere to the fly, so why not venture into the parlor of the spider. However, once inside the "parlor" of the spider, the fly found itself caught up in a web of more than lies, and that led to unexpected and dire consequences for the fly.
With respect to the Proposition B Ballot Initiative, the Humane Society of the U.S. (HSUS) may be reprising the role of the spider, as it spends millions of dollars spinning a web of its propaganda as to why Proposition B is a "no-brainer" for everyone to support. After all, who in their right mind would support cruelty to puppies?! But wait a moment. In a Court of Law, one must "Swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth." However, in the court of public opinion, the HSUS is not required to take that oath."
The following is an illustrative list of the "truths" that HSUS has never told the public or elected officials, and these omissions may call into question the credibility of the HSUS 'spin' and 'propaganda,' especially as it relates to Proposition B, and to the totality of the 'Master Agenda' of the HSUS.
The Federal Animal Welfare Act and Missouri Statutes already address the types of cruelty that the HSUS suggests are lacking in Missouri.
Despite repeated written requests that I have made to Mr. Wayne Pacelle, the President and CEO of the HSUS, to identify his repeated but unsubstantiated statement that there are over "3,000 puppy mills" in Missouri, he has never provided a specific list of those 'phantom,' unnamed kennels.
The Missouri Pet Breeders Association was the first major state pet breeder association to publicly condemn substandard kennels, and it did so over four and a half years ago. It also publicly condemned all forms of animal fighting - not just dog fighting - before the Vick Trial. Again, despite repeated written requests for the HSUS to publicly acknowledge such condemnations by responsible breeders in Missouri, the HSUS refused to do so.
The HSUS may very well have spent hundreds of millions of dollars on lobbying at the Capitol in Washington DC and at state capitols throughout the U.S., but has spent precious little on direct care of dogs in local animal shelters, such as those located in Missouri. This fact is supported by the claims of the HSUS that it was responsible for the passage of more than 25 federal statutes, more than 500 state statutes, and more than 25 other state ballot initiatives.
The majority of these 550 plus statutes and ballot initiatives had to do with issues other than dogs and puppies, which suggest that the agenda of the HSUS is like a cancer that is not isolated, but will spread to other issues that affect the 'American way of life, as opposed to just dogs and puppies.
HSUS spent nearly $6 million in support of the ballot initiatives in California and Ohio, which had nothing to do with dogs. They affected farmers! And the ballot initiative in California has caused the price of eggs to sell for up to $7 a dozen!
HSUS is currently opposing a ballot initiative in Arizona which would affect the right of Arizona to control "wildlife issues." Is it the role of the Washington DC based HSUS to dictate what Arizonians do in their State? If so, then why not allow HSUS to control whatever it believes is best for all Missourians - not just breeders, but ALL MISSOURIANS?! Perhaps, Missourians should be wary of HSUS' spider-like advice!
Mr. Pacelle describes all "responsible breeders" as "puppy millers;" all "family farmers" as "factory farmers," and all "responsible hunters" as "poachers." Since he describes all "responsible hunters" as "poachers," one is left to wonder what is his unspoken position on gun control?!
The HSUS has already contributed, according to the Missouri Ethics Commission, over $1.75 million towards its "direct" lobbying efforts in support of Proposition B, which Mr. Pacelle describes as a "political campaign." However, the HSUS has never mentioned how much, if any, it has contributed to local animal shelters in Missouri. Additionally, Mr. Pacelle and the HSUS have been orchestrating "fund raising parties" not only in Missouri, but from coast to coast - from California to a gala event in New York City - to raise millions of dollars to run TV advertisements in Missouri which focus on the 'HSUS spin' in support of Proposition B, rather than telling the "Truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth."
The Missouri Ethics Commission data confirms that individual contributors, who reside outside of Missouri, have cumulatively contributed, with the urging of the HSUS, well in excess of one million dollars - one single contribution was for $250,000 - for the HSUS sponsored "Vote Yes on Prop B" campaign in Missouri. In fact, approximately 95 percent of all financial contributions in support of Proposition B have come from contributors who reside outside of Missouri! And again, no mention by the HSUS of any financial support of a single animal shelter in Missouri.
The HSUS published and presented to President Obama its "Change Agenda for Animals." The "Change Agenda" is incredibly comprehensive, and it would affect almost every aspect of the American way of life in that it includes a total of 102 "Action Items" for 20 different federal departments and agencies such as the Departments of Defense, State, Justice, Treasury, Commerce, Interior, Health and Human Services, Education, Transportation and Agriculture, as well as the Food and Drug Administration, the Federal Trade Commission and the Environmental Protection Agency. (As a military retiree who served on active duty throughout the entire period of the Vietnam War, I personally and professionally was appalled to read Action Item Number 89 of the "Change Agenda." This Action Item advocates that the Department of Defense curtail certain types of training for military doctors and medical personnel who must treat the battlefield wounds of our young men and women who are so honorably serving our Country in Iraq and Afghanistan.)
If Mr. Pacelle and the HSUS truly cared about the rights of law-abiding citizens, why does he refuse to condemn those who explicitly violate the "Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act" - a Federal Terrorism Act; and why did he describe, in writing, the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act to be an "unjust law?"
Employees of the HSUS and the Humane Society of Missouri orchestrated in November 2009 the confiscation of 25 horses from a person who owned a livery and riding stable in Arkansas in a manner befitting Hitler's Storm Troopers. The confiscation was based on allegations that the horses were abused. Felony criminal charges were filed against the owner of this "Animal Enterprise," and the owner was required to post a $20,000 bond to stay out of jail. In February 2010 the horses were returned to the owner, and in August all criminal charges were dropped against the owner without a trial. The owner has now filed a complaint with the FBI and has alleged that employees of the HSUS and the Humane Society of Missouri violated the "Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act." Could this be the reason 'WHY' the HSUS will not condemn those who violate the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act?
The parent company of Ringling Brothers Circus filed a lawsuit earlier this year in the District Court of Washington DC. The lawsuit alleged that the HSUS, and one of its most senior attorneys, engaged in RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) related activities that included money laundering. That allegation is based on findings of a judge that dismissed an original lawsuit against the parent company of Ringling Brothers that had been filed by the HSUS and the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. Does this RICO-RELATED LAWSUIT raise a question as to the ethical conduct of the HSUS?
Although the HSUS is not a pedophile, its agenda touches children as young as 5-years-old. In this regard, it has published and distributed a Humane Guide for Kids, and this guide includes a section that tells children as young as 5-years-old how to call elected officials and urge them to support the HSUS agenda - an agenda that goes far beyond dogs and puppies. Parenthetically, didn't Hitler try and 'brainwash' young children?
The HSUS has been buying small quantities of shares of food manufacturing companies and fast food companies in order to try and alter the manner in which these companies prepare and distribute food products. When the HSUS urged McDonalds to alter its menu, McDonalds, in essence, told HSUS "Thanks, but no thanks," because it preferred to focus on "science" rather than the HSUS rhetoric.
The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has assigned a case file number to its audit investigation of the Humane Society of Missouri (HSMO) (2010-003995), which has joined forces with the HSUS in support of the Proposition B Ballot Initiative. The IRS audit is based upon documentation that establishes that the Humane Society of Missouri has exceeded the substantial part threshold for "TOO MUCH LOBBYING" by a tax-exempt, public charity. If the IRS determines that the Humane Society of Missouri has engaged in "TOO MUCH LOBBYING," the IRS may rescind its tax-exempt status and assess back taxes and penalties against the Humane Society of Missouri because of non-compliance with the Internal Revenue Code and IRS Regulations.
The IRS has also assigned a case file number to its audit investigation of the Humane Society of the U.S. (29-920112). The IRS audit of the HSUS is partially based on over 1,275 pages of documentation that detail the breadth and magnitude of the lobbying activities of the HSUS, and which indicates that the HSUS has expended over $200 million on lobbying - an amount that far, far, far exceeds what the HSUS has spent on direct care of animals in animal shelters. If the IRS determines that the Humane Society of the U.S. has engaged in "TOO MUCH LOBBYING," the IRS may rescind its tax-exempt status and assess millions of dollars of back taxes and penalties against the HSUS because of its non-compliance with the Internal Revenue Code and IRS Regulations.
The Office of the Inspector General for Tax Administration for the Department of the Treasury has also assigned a Case File Number (55-1005-0025-C) to its own internal review of the lobbying activities of the HSUS.
Even though Mr. Pacelle founded the Humane Society Political Action Committee, which has filed over 2,300 pages of lobbying related information with the Federal Election Commission; and even though Mr. Pacelle and his two most senior Vice Presidents have lobbied members of Congress extensively; and even though the HSUS claims responsibility for the passage of more than 25 federal statutes, these three senior HSUS Executives may not be in compliance with the Lobby Disclosure Act, A federal statute, because a search of the records maintained by the Clerk of the House of Representatives and the Secretary of the Senate do not reflect receipt of lobbying reports from those three individuals, notwithstanding the explicit requirements to do so as set out in the Lobby Disclosure Act.
The above list is illustrative of how pervasive the HSUS has become in trying to influence and affect the American way of life of not only the hard working, tax-paying, caring, federally licensed and inspected breeders, but also farmers; cattle, hog and chicken ranchers; horse owners; hunters; military personnel serving in 'harm's way;' food manufacturers; fast food restaurants; elected officials; the American public; voters; and even our 5-year-old children, and in so doing, the HSUS has not 'Told the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.'
Before you cast your vote on Proposition B, ask yourself: "Do I do as the HSUS from Washington DC tells me to do, even though the HSUS may not have told me the whole truth; and may be a TAX CHEAT; and may have violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act; and may not have complied with the Lobby Disclosure Act, or do I do what is best for my children, the State of Missouri and the United States of America?"
Just as many conscientious Germans lived to regret the alluring rhetoric of Hitler; and just as the fly died as a result of the alluring rhetoric of the spider, voters in Missouri could live to regret accepting, at face value, the alluring rhetoric of the HSUS. VOTE NO on Proposition B on November 2nd!
[This article was published in Missouri in October, shortly before the Missouri Prop B was passed by the narrowest of margins where it failed in all but a handful of the most urban and densely populated districts. The Missouri Legislature is set to reverse the consequences as their session opens in January. Mr. Losey will be speaking at the Summit of the Horse.]
